Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Voting fraud, censorship, group preferences - three ways the Left wrongfoots the Right

*

Voting is a Leftist process. The outcome of a vote has zero intrinsic validity because it has zero personal responsibility.

Therefore when the Left engages in voting fraud, as it increasingly does at every level from mass immigration, mass generation of dependency, rigging of electoral districts, down to manipulation of voting procedures, intimidation, fake votes, open and public ballots, false counting and the rest of it - then the Right cannot complain.

*

Because if the Right does complain, it unavoidably puts itself into the position of arguing for something it ought to be against - voting.

For the Right it is voting which is the problem, not whether voting is done fairly or foully.

*

The Left recognizes that the process of voting is meaningless - what matters is getting the 'correct' answer.

The Right ought to agree - the difference being that the Right knows the Left has the wrong answer.

It is the Left's ideology which is evil, not the mechanism by which they impose it.

*

[Having said that - to lie is evil; the Left's voting fraud is itself evil, because it is dishonest: doubly-dishonest in its operating covertly behind lyingly idealistic justifications, and dishonest in its denial that it is happening - its covering-up.]

**

The Left is engaged in wholesale censorship of material in the public domain - from school textbooks right through to the cover-up of massive government evil-doing.

It is tempting for the Right to argue against this as censorship and argue instead for freedom of speech, freedom to publish oppositional views, or a 'balance' of views, or whatever...

But the Left is correct to use censorship - censorship is necessary and desirable. The Right should not attack the Left for using censorship.

However, the Left censors Good: excludes God from the agora; from schools, administration, newspapers, movies and the television.

The Right should be clear that it wants and needs to control the public discourse, just as the Left now does; but for the opposite purpose.

**

The Left uses affirmative action, quotas and preferential policies to appoint members of favoured groups to desirable positions, to allocate resources, and to propagandize their status; and it is temping for the Right to oppose these on grounds of functionality or merit, and instead to advocate group-blind policies, or objective and impartial hiring and promotions.

But the Left is correct to perceive that partiality and prejudice are inevitable and instruments of social improvement.

The problem is that the Left is evil, and so deploys preferences and quotas to exclude those who most deserve them, and to destroy society rather than to sustain it.

The Right needs to embrace the partiality and prejudice which the Left has imposed; but reverse its valence.

*

In general, the Right should be distinguished from the Left primarily in terms of its purpose, not its procedures.

The Left wants an atheist, nihilist and hedonic society of existentially-isolated individuals; the Right wants a religious society.

The main methodological difference is that the Left is free to lie and cheat and deny and fabricate - since that is consistent with its own demonic motivations; while the Right must be realistic and truthful, since from a transcendental perspective the means cannot be dissociated from the ends.

@Ben - At present the Left cannot be defeated because the mass of people want the Left, want evil - because they regard evil as Good.

The defeat of the Left can only come on the other side of repentance - a recognition of the wrongness of the Left, a society-wide change of heart.

This has not happened, therefore the Leftward movement continues.

But for religious people the situation is as it always has been; they have to do what they have to do. But the forces of deception are more cunning and more pervasive than ever before - so many people drift into apostasy, and confuse Good and evil (perhaps for reasons of expediency - but sometimes due to sheer addiction to distractions).

To defeat the Left we must practice discernment, and evangelism - the urgent need for repentance, to accept forgiveness, and to be saved.

But if we do all this and yet fail, as seems likely (after all, sooner or later this world will end) the salvation of the faithful and loving will not be affected by the failure.

Never forget that the Left will weaken and eventually destroy itself - since that its what it is, a destructive impulse that believes in nothing (reality is not real) and imposes nothingness on itself and everything else.

Also evil is always impatient and always over-reaches - because it cannot resist short term destruction even when this is self-defeating.

The crude "technical" fraud is not the main problem. The Left addicting people to evil, so that they vote for it -- that is the problem.

If voting is bad, and the Right cannot impose its will on the people through electoral processes anyway (because the majority of the people want evil) then where does that leave the Right? How is the Right to get into a position where it can control the discourse and create a religious society?

It goes without saying that the Left would resist the Right from achieving those objectives with extreme violence. And, since the Left is in the numerical majority, a resort to violence does not look any more favorable than a resort to the ballot box.

As conservative American Christians today ponder (with so very little sight of what God and the angels behold) things after the re-election of this president, I find three Biblical passages come to mind. I quote from memory --

1."Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

2."Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake; rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." This verse will be particularly pertinent as conservative Christians are subjected to hateful speech and acts for their opposition to "same-sex marriage" etc. in the months ahead.

@Dale - words worth pondering. But wrt number 1, there are a few who know *exactly* what they are doing.

@JP - "How is the Right to get into a position where it can control the discourse and create a religious society?"

Quite likely it can't. We are creatures with free will, and can chose wrongly, and (what is more relevant, since wrong choices are inevitable) can choose not to repent our wrong choices. In which case, either these choices will bring their own retribution, or perhaps there will be the kind of retribution described in the Old Testament.

Nonetheless, we must still hope, and have faith, and evangelize as best we may. Same as ever.

We are not primarily political creatures; and should not be deceived into imagining there are primarily political solutions.

The Left recognizes that the process of voting is meaningless - what matters is getting the 'correct' answer.

I don't think that fully captures the relationship between the Left and voting. The Left cares deeply about equal rights -- indeed it cares about little else. Universal suffrage voting is the sin qua non of equal rights, the liturgy in which each autonomous individual expresses precisely, quantitatively equal political power: it is the Black Mass in which all the autonomous Wills of self-created individual liberals are aggregated into one tremendous Will.

The problem, as you point out, is that humanity doesn't always choose liberalism; therefore giving precisely equal political power to all of humanity does not in practice result in the undistilled liberalism that it "should".

Liberalism solves this problem by dividing actual humanity into liberals and enemies of liberalism. But because actual enemies of liberalism cannot exist, the enemies of liberalism are viewed as something less than human: as the untermensch. In practice then liberalism becomes an expression of the will of free and equal supermen, self-created through reason and will, emancipated from the chains of history, tradition, arbitrary (that is, non-willed) nature, and anything else that stands in the way of the emergence of the free and equal emancipated new man.

All forms of modernity share this human/subhuman division of humanity, as a way of resolving the fact that in order for liberalism to be legitimate on its own terms everyone must equally want it and freely embrace it but in fact, in the end, nobody really wants it. So those who overtly reject liberalism are Nazis: in one of history's great ironies, the Nazi becomes the untermensch, or at least the ultimate transcendent untermensch, contrasted to the free and equal new man.

I've discussed this dynamic in a number of places over the years; e.g. here (and in the comments there).

Anyway, to the extent the Left uses whatever tactics it has to in order to disenfranchise the illiberal untermensch it is justified (in the leftist's view), because they are Nazis anyway and ideally shouldn't be allowed to vote. The liberal sees someone who votes based on illiberal motives similarly to how the average conservative sees felons who vote, or even dead Chicagoans. Non-liberals haven't accepted the liberal social contract, and so they are not in the proper state of grace to receive the Sacrament.

Up to about 50 years ago the Left genuinely used to be in favour of fair voting, maximum franchise, secret ballots, voter identification etc.

They thought, back then, that anything else would be manipulated by the powerful against the oppressed.

Over recent decades, and since the Left became dominant, this has progressively reversed; and the Left has become strongly pro-corruption in almost every respect. 'Fairness' is now a cynical mask for whatever the Left wants.

Over not much time, this kind of Leftism in a single party state will degenerate into populist gangsterism.

1) The Left has de facto abandoned the principle of equality and become cynical gangsters as it has gained dominance.

2) When leftist equality collides with reality the result is that any persons in the way of leftism become dehumanized.

One advantage of the latter over the former is that the latter is a dispassionate systems analysis, while the former gains its simplicity by appealing to bad motivations. Another is that it explains what leftists are after: the whole "power for power's sake" narrative has always struck me as a bit too pat: the sort of criticism which could be applied to anyone seeking power for any end by simply ignoring their actual goals. A third is that it explains why leftists are passionate about equal rights and yet end up dehumanizing whole categories of human beings.

So I guess I'd suggest that my explanation is just as simple in the end, but has far more explanatory power.

@Roger U - new here, I see perceive. This is covered in multiple posts, if you're interested in browsing - or take a look at Thought Prison

http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/

No, the Right don't have a party. I mean the conservative, Traditionalist, Religious Right (not necessarily Christian) - those who see their religion as the most important thing, and that (ideally) all government should be practiced in accordance with religion.

@zippy - I don't think we much disagree. My point was that the kind of cynical vote rigging is not intrinsic to Leftism.

Its motivation might proximately be power, but its justification is ideological - the lying is done with burning zeal and self-righteousness.

(Also, Christians are among very few who regard lying and deception as wrong per se - which was a major factor in the rise of science; most groups only try to prohibit lying within the group, or to superiors within the group.)

And I agree that it is vital to recognize that the Left is aggressive - it will not leave its enemies alone, it see no room for agreeing to disagree.

e.g. The Left is seeking-out and trying to crush those who dissent on its program to destroy marriage and the family; nobody and no group will be allowed to opt-out, not the Mormons, not the Amish - all will have to obey or resist.

If you haven't looked at my book-let Thought Prison (link above) you might find it interesting.